EH.R: Is Trade Unique to Humans?

[Robert E. Wright]

I fear our discussion of trade has grown too anthropomorphic. Normally that is not an issue because in our everyday research we treat with humans exclusively and conceive of other species as commodities rather than counterparties. But if we define trade too anthropomorphically here of course we are going to conclude that only humans trade ... 

I'd therefore urge, as I hinted in my original post, that instead of slicing and dicing exchange as an anthropologist would into reciprocity and all that, we should think of trade as the exchange of goods (as opposed to bads) not dictated by instinct, where the details of specific exchanges are not hardwired into DNA. 

That would probably eliminate the bloody bats from consideration and problematize the bonobo prostitutes example. Though to be frank if the bonobos response is not genetic (does the amount of food given for sex vary much from bonobo to bonobo based on say the quantity of food available or the male to female ratio, etc., etc.?) it would go a long way towards proving the claim that prostitution is indeed the oldest profession, likely dating back some 7 million years to the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees. (btw, though I haven't taught Human Origins for some years now I have heard that researchers are re-thinking their earlier characterizations of bonobo behavior. I don't know if the details extend to their reproductive habits though.)


Bob W.

-- 

Robert E. Wright
Clinical Associate Professor
Department of Economics
Stern School of Business
New York University
44 West 4th Street
New York, New York 10012-1126
Phone: 1-212-998-0756
Fax: 1-212-995-4218

E-mail: rwright at stern.nyu.edu
E-mail 2: alexanderhamilton at comcast.net
Blog: http://financehistoryandpolicy.blogspot.com/
Book: http://www.financialfoundingfathers.com/
Book 2: http://www.thefirstwallstreet.com/
Book Series: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/alexanderhamilton/series.html